ISIS Now Controls Iraq's Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, Surrounds Baghdad on Three Sides

This news is relatively new (within the hour), and i thought that these events need to be shared here.

By now, it is obvious that ISIS is dead serious on taking Baghdad. Cutting off the main water supplies to the country, while surrounding the capital,
is a sure way to ensure a higher chance of victory.

As the following link states, ISIS has successfully taken control of the country's water supplies, and as a result, may not even need to launch a full
scale invasion of Baghdad:

Despite the apparent suddenness, ISIS's assault on Iraq has been brewing for six months. Last January, ISIS started fighting its way from Syria
down the Euphrates river into Iraq. In May it captured the town of Fallujah, the scene of bloody fighting during the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
This week, ISIS captured Iraq's second-largest city Mosul, on the Tigris river, then advanced down the Tigris to the town of Tikrit, and beyond it to
the Shiite holy town of Samarra. Both Samarra and Fallujah are within striking distance of the capital Baghdad.

It is not clear at the time of writing whether ISIS will launch a military attack on Baghdad, or even if it could take the heavily armed city in a
pitched battle.

But it may not need to. Iraq is ancient Mesopotamia, the once-fertile floodplain of the Tigris and Euphrates that cradled the first human
civilisation. The rivers remain crucial to the farming on which most Iraqis depend, according to a report by the International Centre for Agricultural
Research on the Dry Areas, which was once based in Aleppo, Syria, but has now decamped to Amman in Jordan to avoid fighting.

ISIS now controls several major dams on the rivers, for instance at Haditha and Samarra. It also holds one 30 kilometres north of Mosul that was built
on fragile rock and poses a risk of collapse. It holds at least 8 billion cubic metres of water. In 2003, there were fears Iraqi troops might destroy
the dam to wipe out invading forces. US military engineers calculated that the resulting wave would obliterate Mosul and even hit Baghdad.

In addition to ISIS' seizing of Iraq's main water supplies, they have also advanced their position towards Baghdad. Currently, ISIS is surrounding
Baghdad on three sides. Fallujah to the West, Tikrit to the north and the towns of Saadiyah and Jalawla towards the North Eastern and Eastern areas of
the capital.

Overall, this situation is a complete mess, and i believe that the international scene has to think fast on what they want to do. It's only a matter
of time before ISIS takes Baghdad, and if they do...we all know what will happen.

I smell a fish here.... We (the US) spent years and billions upon billions training Iraqi soldiers and providing arms, munitions and setting up an
"ad hoc" government to help them get back online.

I get a strange feeling that our government had this in mind all along. Get things rolling in Iraq and then it gives us a green light to point the
finger at whoever we think needs to be "saved" from horrible oppression.

to convenient... I do feel for the people over there who are having to deal with this garbage.

I can't believe this is not being more widely reported, especially on the heels of the release of the Gitmo 5.

This is huge!

IRAQ Iraq crisis: the jihadist behind the takeover of Mosul - and how America let him go

The fall of the Iraqi city of Mosul to the al-Qaeda offshoot ISIS has shown the power of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi - a former US detainee

The FBI “most wanted” mugshot shows a tough, swarthy figure, his hair in a jailbird crew-cut. The $10 million price on his head, meanwhile,
suggests that whoever released him from US custody four years ago may now be regretting it.
Taken during his years as a detainee at the US-run Camp Bucca in southern Iraq, this is the only known photograph of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the new
leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq and Syria. But while he may lack the photogenic qualities of his hero, Osama bin Laden, he is fast becoming the new
poster-boy for the global jihadist movement.

My personal opinion is that if ISIS takes Baghdad, we can expect a coalition of allied forces to enter Iraq in order to ensure that the state doesn't
collapse. That may or may not involve ground forces, but of course the overall situation can change depending on circumstances. To be honest, i really
don't think that the world would let a radical Islamist group force the collapse of a sovereign state, only to form an Islamic Caliphate...well, i
could hope that they wouldn't let it happen, but nothing is surprising anymore.

originally posted by: skunkape23
You have to admit it is genius business model for those who sell ammo.

It's funny that you should say that as I remember a vague story about that dick, Cheney having stocks in a munitions company. I'm gonna be up all
night searching for it now.

oops,
my bad, it was oil services company CEO.

However, of all the administration members with potential conflicts of interest, none seems more troubling than Vice President Dick Cheney.
Cheney is former CEO of Halliburton, an oil-services company that also provides construction and military support services - a triple-header of
wartime spoils.

We never should have been there in the first place. Desperate people radicalize, it's a known effect of war. Warring radical factions cause
destabilization... also a known effect of war. This seems more like mission accomplished.

My God.
So much for all the money, lives and minds lost there.
I hate to say it but, let them have it. What else could the plan be? Start over what we started 10 years ago?
People should be outraged. This mess in the middle east has dominated our lives for a decade and most of it has been for NOTHING, besides a lot of
eff'd in the head soldiers and a debt clock that keeps ticking.
Let them have it. Let the Muslim world be the Muslim world and let the USA take care of the massive stockpile of internal problems.

Fast thinking and rushing in has helped get us into this situation as we are now on the back foot and out of control. What is the ultimate aim? Long
term regional stability is one thing I would put pretty high up on the priorities. With Syria's recent election it looks as though it has helped
solidify the nation and pushed ISIS out, which has lead them south to Iraq. Moral in Iraq looks to be weak making it a pushover, considering the
situation I do not think this is a real surprise.

With so much cultural bickering and infighting going on in the region is it right for us to pick a side and go with that or should we pick our men in
all the teams and go with them?

A big part of the problem with the Iraqi forces is they have for decades known that anytime thing got hairy they could pull out and let the Americans
handle it. We go rushing into to save the day again and that will never ever change. On top of that the current Iraqi goverments ties to Iran mean
the US would be fighting on the same side as Iran with Iran no doubt getting all the credit. My opinion is we give Iraq some logitical and intel
support, maybe some air support and that is it at most. They are more than capable a taking care of this but, never will if they think the US will
come rushing in. And on top of that Iran would now be heavily commited to fighting two wars in Syria and Iraq that look to have end. At least they
will be to busy to mess with Israel or the Gulf States. For the Russians this could be a disaster as a state like this so close to its borders means
that some of the less stable former soviet states could fall and Russia could find itself in a whole world of hurt its southern regions.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.